I agree with you, RWS, and I think my post doesn’t challenge your assertions. Does it?
Since such a group is based on common interests, those interests work both as a filter (whoever is not interested will not apply) and as an admission requirement (if you don’t share those interests, you may be denied admission). As long as the common interest is not of sexual nature, neither need the admission criteria be. The group is exclusive with respect to the shared interests of its members, not their inherent features. Anyway, I am far from the idea that a men's club is “in se” a mysoginous thing - indeed men may share interests they do not have in common with women. However, men are not all the same and sexual behaviour is just one thing they may not all share, although they may have many other things in common. What one does in bed is a private matter and I am sure it is not a subject of discussion among gentlemen in clubs.
NJS, I don’t know if anyone felt insulted and I am not advocating any cause here - my reference to Wilde was meant as to someone who was persecuted (and prosecuted) on account of his nature (he certainly was not imprisoned because he sired two sons), therefore a victim of society (unless you think he was a victim of his own conduct). The laws may have changed since then, but unjustified social exclusion continues to take place. I agree, however, that it is not non-discrimination laws that will solve this (they sometimes have the contrary effect, as you wrote), but a better understanding of human variability.
Perhaps I am more idealistic (or naive) on account of my youth and my discourse is purely theoretical as I am not a member of any London club
London clubs
No, it needn't. I do, however, thinkCosti wrote:I agree with you, RWS, and I think my post doesn’t challenge your assertions. Does it?
and, better still (I believe), a heartfelt empathy and recognition that none of us human beings is perfect. However, I don't endorse limitless toleration: no pickpockets here, sirs, nor brown in town, either!. . . . that it is not non-discrimination laws that will solve this (they sometimes have the contrary effect, as you wrote), but a better understanding of human variability
Seriously, I do think that persons in voluntary association should be able to admit to and bar from their association whom they wish, unless that group benefit directly from governmental assistance. As for the variety of toleration: well, my favorite men's society, virtually a club without clubhouse, has a variety of members (not so varied in social background or political belief, perhaps, but in other aspects); and (because no one presses his own attitudes upon another) the society has not been hindered because of it.
Save of the Lounge!. . . . Perhaps I am more idealistic (or naive) on account of my youth and my discourse is purely theoretical as I am not a member of any London club
Last edited by RWS on Wed May 28, 2008 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Once again, I am enjoying the discussion, though not contributing. I hope you gentlemen don't mind the flattery of a freeloader.
The originator of this thread may well be wondering whether, in despite of his simple desire to find a convivial atmosphere for his useful and totally harmless pursuits, he has raised Cain and that some of us are about to do battle as Hengist and Horsa or Jungists and Freudians!! Anyhow, I am sure that this is not so. Maybe some of us olduns just see the world changing, in the name of 'progress' , when all that is really, increasingly, happening is change for its own sake and some needlessly deleterious results and with the consequential disturbance of us; quiet old buffers in deep, padded chairs whose only desire of an afternoon is to keep the Daily Telegraph afloat in the air, above our noses, on the magical fumes of some fine tobacco, in understanding company.
NJS.
NJS.
Save of the Lounge, yes! The Lounge, by the way, has at least one lady member and I am sure the warm welcome she received when she joined was genuine, beyond politeness.RWS wrote:Save of the Lounge!. . . . Perhaps I am more idealistic (or naive) on account of my youth and my discourse is purely theoretical as I am not a member of any London club
Of course any form of association should be free to devise its own criteria for the admission of members. What I was discussing was exactly how the associates decide to use this freedom. But this is really just for argument’s sake, because in the end everyone is free to do as one pleases without any obligation to justify oneself.
I agree that irresponsible “progress” and change out of boredom are factors of decline for the quality of our lives – or I wouldn’t be here. However, if the fact that we no longer burn witches and trial astronomers who think the Earth is round is the result of progress and change, then perhaps there is some worth to such progress and change.
You are right, NJS, that nobody is fighting any battle. All we are doing is this:
(replace “bespoke apparel arts” with the various themes covered by “elegant living”)Within the walls of the London Lounge, all subjects of discussion and debate that permit a greater understanding of the bespoke apparel arts are encouraged. They shall be conducted vigorously but with the respect and courtesy befitting Gentlemen.
Once again, I apologize for hijacking half a meter of postings (if not more) from this thread, as I have no immediate plans to join or visit the premises of any London club, nor do I have any relevant experience with which I can contribute. I was enjoying and learning from the members' posts until I decided to make a solitary and obviously unwelcome remark for a lost cause (don't we all tend to take the loser's side?). If my posts upset any of the members who were kind enough to exchange thoughts with me on this topic, I genuinely regret it and I assure them of my unwaivered consideration.
Costi,
I hope that you do not think that you have upset me. I provoked you to respond to an ill-considered comment of mine about a minority group (although I think that, specifically, the Wilde case actually did involve corruption of minors which, although the age limits might have changed, remains a crime, regardless of sexuality). The LL is a place where we can all have a say and debate - we may or may not develop or change our own views as a result. Moreover, the space here is, courtesy of MA's generosity, free - so why fret about using limitless space? As for the lady members of the Lounge - the main criterion for membership involves demonstrating a genuine interest in the subjects under discussion. Period. My own concern about other clubs being forced to change their criteria for private membership to accord with state over-regulation of everything, is just that I don't like bullies and those in national and local government in the UK include too many didactic, despotic bullies - and short-sighted ones at that since, for example, they missed to realize that smokers probably drink more than non-smokers and now the pubs and brewers are getting into financial trouble. That's my point of view in a nutshell. I have absolutely no use for your apology and I look forward very much to future exchanges of view.
best
Nicholas.
I hope that you do not think that you have upset me. I provoked you to respond to an ill-considered comment of mine about a minority group (although I think that, specifically, the Wilde case actually did involve corruption of minors which, although the age limits might have changed, remains a crime, regardless of sexuality). The LL is a place where we can all have a say and debate - we may or may not develop or change our own views as a result. Moreover, the space here is, courtesy of MA's generosity, free - so why fret about using limitless space? As for the lady members of the Lounge - the main criterion for membership involves demonstrating a genuine interest in the subjects under discussion. Period. My own concern about other clubs being forced to change their criteria for private membership to accord with state over-regulation of everything, is just that I don't like bullies and those in national and local government in the UK include too many didactic, despotic bullies - and short-sighted ones at that since, for example, they missed to realize that smokers probably drink more than non-smokers and now the pubs and brewers are getting into financial trouble. That's my point of view in a nutshell. I have absolutely no use for your apology and I look forward very much to future exchanges of view.
best
Nicholas.
Sorry to introduce a non-controversial element into this lively thread but what do our members make of the Annabel's group of clubs? I don't have much experience of them, but the image they present is one of timeless elegance combined with a dedication to very high quality service, food and drink. In so doing they may trump the traditional clubs, which are, in my limited experience, big on atmosphere but careless about food and drink and service. The RAC, where I'm a member, has great facilities but very poor food and service.
Goodness, no! The considered thoughts of a justly valued member of the Lounge need no apology and one should not be sought.Costi wrote:. . . . I apologize for hijacking half a meter of postings . . . .
I know that I'm far from the only Lounger who'd be hurt and disappointed were you to circumscribe expression of opinion -- please don't, Costi!
Gentlemen, I am glad to learn I misinterpreted the tone of a post and my quixotic opinions did not cause any irritation. I did not apologize for expressing them, but for generating a (relatively) off-topic branch in this thread. I did express regret in case they annoyed anyone, because I had not meant them to be belligerent or challenging.
Before we put mr. Wilde back to his eternal rest, along with Cain (or rather Don Quixote), I meant to affirm that I would be happy to be a member of the same club as him, were he still alive today or had I been born earlier.
I assure you I did not mean my previous post as a touchy suggestion that I might limit my contributions to the LL – nobody offended me and I am certainly not as idealistic as to expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with my thinking. I am sure we agree that would be a boring world to live in…
Before we put mr. Wilde back to his eternal rest, along with Cain (or rather Don Quixote), I meant to affirm that I would be happy to be a member of the same club as him, were he still alive today or had I been born earlier.
I assure you I did not mean my previous post as a touchy suggestion that I might limit my contributions to the LL – nobody offended me and I am certainly not as idealistic as to expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with my thinking. I am sure we agree that would be a boring world to live in…
Costi, to tie up the one loose end I see: the best threads in the Lounge are woven as the best conversations flow: easily going from one topic to another, then back again -- or not -- at speeds varying but all entirely natural. There's no such thing as going off-topic. Your comments were excellent and welcome.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests